Homosexuals

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

I once read that 50% of all ranchers and farmers have had sex with farm animals.

A one in two chance here, folks. I'm just sayin'.

i heard city boys popped their sisters. maybe steriotyping people is wrong.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

maybe steriotyping people is wrong.

You know........I think you're right. It is wrong, isn't it....

NMyTree

onelongsong wrote:

i think it happened in '71 or '72. he wasn't washed up then.

....and? So what? So he fucked a watermelon. It wasn't a dog or sheep.

Some people have quite a few of kinky preferences. Fucking a fruit, should be none of your concern or mine.

Milhouse VanHouten

onelongsong wrote:

i heard city boys popped their sisters. maybe steriotyping people is wrong.

Stereotyping probably is wrong, but I'm not familiar with any popular stereotype involving urban incest. Were you just making that up so you'd have a witty retort?

onelongsong

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Stereotyping probably is wrong, but I'm not familiar with any popular stereotype involving urban incest. Were you just making that up so you'd have a witty retort?

i wasn't making that up. i've also heard that russians have tails. and that wearing your tee shirt inside your underwear makes you gay. and a college prep professor once told me that smoking pot causes acne. i swear that he actually told the whole class that. i also heard that the only virgins in mexico are girls that can outrun their brothers.

Milhouse VanHouten

onelongsong wrote:

i wasn't making that up. i've also heard that russians have tails. and that wearing your tee shirt inside your underwear makes you gay. and a college prep professor once told me that smoking pot causes acne. i swear that he actually told the whole class that. i also heard that the only virgins in mexico are girls that can outrun their brothers.

That last one was quite classy.

onelongsong

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

That last one was quite classy.

i thought my entire post was in bad taste but these are stereotype legends that i've heard. i don't believe any of them but i didn't bring up the subject.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

i wasn't making that up. i've also heard that russians have tails. and that wearing your tee shirt inside your underwear makes you gay. and a college prep professor once told me that smoking pot causes acne. i swear that he actually told the whole class that. i also heard that the only virgins in mexico are girls that can outrun their brothers.

The thing is, for me it wasn't something I'd simply heard. It was an actual statistic brought up in an anthropology class I had many long year ago - and was used during a discussion on the accuracy of statistical analysis. Maybe it's 50%, maybe it's not. The frequency would have to be pretty high for a poll to hit that 50% mark, though.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

i thought my entire post was in bad taste but these are stereotype legends that i've heard. i don't believe any of them but i didn't bring up the subject.

Maybe not. However, if this is a thread about homosexuality, and homosexuality is comparible to beastiality as you claim, then interjecting all aspects of beastiality isn't really off topic, is it?

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

The thing is, for me it wasn't something I'd simply heard. It was an actual statistic brought up in an anthropology class I had many long year ago - and was used during a discussion on the accuracy of statistical analysis. Maybe it's 50%, maybe it's not. The frequency would have to be pretty high for a poll to hit that 50% mark, though.

a couple thousand years ago it was common for shepards to have sex with their sheep so i guess the % would have been much higher then. as for a recent study; i can't imagine anyone admitting to having sex with their animals so where did the numbers come from. your stats do enforce that beastiality is more common than expected and these people deserve the same rights as we are debating. one for all and all for one.
as for me; i'll personally fly you here and let you try to enter my pasture and feed a treat to any one of my buffalo. you won't need a flight back if you try it. even the coyotes stop at the fence and walk around it.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

a couple thousand years ago it was common for shepards to have sex with their sheep so i guess the % would have been much higher then. as for a recent study; i can't imagine anyone admitting to having sex with their animals so where did the numbers come from.

It was an anonymous poll, if I remember correctly.

onelongsong wrote:

your stats do enforce that beastiality is more common than expected and these people deserve the same rights as we are debating. one for all and all for one.

Except animals can't consent. Sure, people will continue to bugger them, and the ones that get caught will probably be fined. Remember, it's legal to humanely kill an animal, provided it's not endangered; but it is illegal to torture an animal. Since animals cannot consent to sex, then all sex with animals is a form of rape - which falls under the torture statute. And, since marriage implies sex, a human cannot marry an animal; as it would be tacit justification by the State that torturing animals is O.K. And we can't have that.

So, common or not, bestiality cannot be legalized - let alone room made for cross species marriage. In the U.S., homosexuality is legal, provided there is consent. Therefore, it isn't much of a stretch to allow gay marriage - far, far fewer laws to change.

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

Maybe not. However, if this is a thread about homosexuality, and homosexuality is comparible to beastiality as you claim, then interjecting all aspects of beastiality isn't really off topic, is it?

homosexuality is by no means comparible to beastiality. what IS comparible is sexual preference. if we are debating giving certain rights or acceptance to one group of people that prefer one unconventional avenue; then all people should be granted the same rights or acceptance. if joe has sex with his dog in the privacy of his own home; who does it hurt? the same goes for 3 consenting adults wanting to enter into a polygamist relationship. it's still a hetrosexual relationship and more family based than the traditional couple.
my whole point is if we're changing the laws; let's change them now instead of a few years down the line when the others want equal rights too.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

homosexuality is by no means comparible to beastiality. what IS comparible is sexual preference. if we are debating giving certain rights or acceptance to one group of people that prefer one unconventional avenue; then all people should be granted the same rights or acceptance. if joe has sex with his dog in the privacy of his own home; who does it hurt? the same goes for 3 consenting adults wanting to enter into a polygamist relationship. it's still a hetrosexual relationship and more family based than the traditional couple.
my whole point is if we're changing the laws; let's change them now instead of a few years down the line when the others want equal rights too.

No, what you're saying is let's all be hyperbolic so that we can avoid discussing this issue in a rational way. If you want to talk slippery slopes, polygamy is about the only viable argument - and it's still not a strong one. Beastiality is not on that slippery slope. At all. "if joe has sex with his dog in the privacy of his own home; who does it hurt?" Easy. The dog. Animal abuse is a no-no.

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

It was an anonymous poll, if I remember correctly.
Except animals can't consent. Sure, people will continue to bugger them, and the ones that get caught will probably be fined. Remember, it's legal to humanely kill an animal, provided it's not endangered; but it is illegal to torture an animal. Since animals cannot consent to sex, then all sex with animals is a form of rape - which falls under the torture statute. And, since marriage implies sex, a human cannot marry an animal; as it would be tacit justification by the State that torturing animals is O.K. And we can't have that.

So, common or not, bestiality cannot be legalized - let alone room made for cross species marriage. In the U.S., homosexuality is legal, provided there is consent. Therefore, it isn't much of a stretch to allow gay marriage - far, far fewer laws to change.

actually; the girl i knew in chicago would charge $20. per person to watch her dog do her. it didn't take much coaching for the dog. i never took the offer up but others who did see it said the dog hopped right on.
anal sex causes much more medical damage than that would have. wouldn't that be torchure too?

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

No, what you're saying is let's all be hyperbolic so that we can avoid discussing this issue in a rational way. If you want to talk slippery slopes, polygamy is about the only viable argument - and it's still not a strong one. Beastiality is not on that slippery slope. At all. "if joe has sex with his dog in the privacy of his own home; who does it hurt?" Easy. The dog. Animal abuse is a no-no.

as i said; anal sex is medically damaging to humans.

Milhouse VanHouten

onelongsong wrote:

actually; the girl i knew in chicago would charge $20. per person to watch her dog do her. it didn't take much coaching for the dog. i never took the offer up but others who did see it said the dog hopped right on.
anal sex causes much more medical damage than that would have. wouldn't that be torchure too?

It can't be considered torture if it's consensual, can it?

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

actually; the girl i knew in chicago would charge $20. per person to watch her dog do her. it didn't take much coaching for the dog. i never took the offer up but others who did see it said the dog hopped right on.

Well, now. That's good to know. Anyway, regardless of the dog's apparent willingness to jump up on it, that does not constitute consent from the animal - anymore than it would be considered consent if it was a "willing" child.

onelongsong wrote:

anal sex causes much more medical damage than that would have. wouldn't that be torchure too?

While anuses themselves cannot consent, the adult human beings they are attached to can. So, torture or not, if you want to have your Glory Hole torn up to Valhalla and back, it's your right. You're also legally allowed to have yourself hung from hooks, too. Or even put in a black hood and electrocuted. Just like with all adult sex, if it's not against the person's will, it's all good.

onelongsong

RainDog wrote:

No, what you're saying is let's all be hyperbolic so that we can avoid discussing this issue in a rational way. If you want to talk slippery slopes, polygamy is about the only viable argument - and it's still not a strong one. Beastiality is not on that slippery slope. At all. "if joe has sex with his dog in the privacy of his own home; who does it hurt?" Easy. The dog. Animal abuse is a no-no.

slippery slopes? if more than 50% of people agreed with homosexuality being "normal" to any degree we'd already have gay marriage and not propositions on the ballet to outlaw it. i look at homosexuality as you look at beastiality. well; i look at them both the same.

RainDog

onelongsong wrote:

slippery slopes? if more than 50% of people agreed with homosexuality being "normal" to any degree we'd already have gay marriage and not propositions on the ballet to outlaw it. i look at homosexuality as you look at beastiality. well; i look at them both the same.

So you look at consensual and non-consensual sex as being the same thing? Yikes.

Milhouse VanHouten

onelongsong wrote:

slippery slopes? if more than 50% of people agreed with homosexuality being "normal" to any degree we'd already have gay marriage and not propositions on the ballet to outlaw it. i look at homosexuality as you look at beastiality. well; i look at them both the same.

There's an anti-gay marriage ballet? Is Mikhail Baryshnikov in it?